In the early 1970s, the US Army recognized that it needed a modern anti-aircraft gun system to protect its armoured units. All it had at the time was the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS) that was essentially an M113 APC with a small turret on top carrying an M61A1 six-barreled 20 mm cannon and a simple range-finding radar. As this had been intended as a stopgap, it was time to develop its replacement.

The basic requirement was for a fully armoured vehicle with one or more guns in the 30 to 40 mm calibre range, controlled by radar, and mounted on the chassis of the M48A5 main battle tank. The choice for the chassis was simply because the US Army had plenty of those to spare now that the new M1 Abrams MBT was about to go into production, allowing the M48A5 tanks still in use to be replaced by M60-series tanks that would themselves be phased out of frontline service in favour of the M1. The programme was initially known as the Advanced Radar-directed Gun Air Defense System (ARGADS), but then renamed to Division Air Defense (DIVAD).

By 1977, five companies had submitted proposals for such a vehicle.

• Raytheon's design used the turret of the Dutch PRTL (Pantser, Rups, Tegen Luchtdoelen, lit. "Armour, Track, Against Aerial Targets"), which is basically the German Gepard turret but with Dutch search and tracking radars, and which was coming into service in the Netherlands at the time. This turret had two 35 mm Oerlikon KDA guns, one on each side of the narrow turret, with the search radar on the rear of the turret and the tracking radar on the front.
  
• General Electric had a well-sloped turret carrying their GAU-8A cannon, as used in the A-10 close-support aircraft. This had both radars on the rear roof of the turret, the search radar on the right and the tracking radar on the left.
• Sperry had designed a six-barrel 37 mm gun for the T249 Vigilante anti-aircraft system of the 1950s, and adapted it to NATO 35 mm ammunition (the same as fired by the PRTL) for their entry, installing it in a bulbous, asymmetrical turret with the radars on the rear roof like GE, but the other way around: search radar on the left and the tracking radar on the right.
  
• General Dynamics also used the Oerlikon KDA, but in a large turret with the two guns mounted centre-forward. It had the tracking radar to the right of the guns, on the turret's front, and the search radar centrally on the rear.
• Ford's turret carried two 40 mm Bofors L/70 guns, in the middle like GE's, but put the search radar in the middle on the rear roof and the tracking radar on the left side of the turret.

On 13 January 1978, contracts were awarded to GE and Ford to build two prototypes each, for testing. The former would be known as the XM246, the latter as the XM247. This video shows both in action during the test programme:


in 1981, the M247 was chosen and the following year, officially named "Sgt. York" after Alvin C. York of First World War fame. Further testing showed all kinds of issues, but production was started, and the first examples came off the production line in 1984. Though efforts were made to solve the various problems, the whole project was cancelled on 27 August 1985 after around fifty vehicles had been produced. The M163 was to remain in service for another decade or more, and various other anti-aircraft vehicles would be put into American service, none of them as capable as the DIVAD was supposed to have been.

(source)

(The irony here is, IMHO, that had the US been prepared to "buy foreign", they could have had a system that served well in NATO and has been very satisfactory to the Ukrainians as well over the last two years ...)


So far for the real world Some reading on the subject over the last year or so has convinced me that the reasons the M247 had the plug pulled on it were at least as much political as they were to do with its unreliability. When it worked, it seems to have worked quite well — and that means it should have been fixable, if the will was there. But it looks to me like the US Army had used up all its credit by mid-1985, and that was what actually lead to it being cancelled rather than fixed.

Now, of course, that brings us to the question of what if it hadn't been. The US Army would have had the M247 in service, but that's been done to death in model form — Takom's kit from last year even gives a number of marking options for it. So who else would perhaps want (or get) one?

Some thinking about that makes me think there wouldn't be that many countries with M247s. They would probably already have to have M48A3, -A5s or M60s in service, because else it would introduce a whole new chassis with all of its spare parts issues. And they would need to be politically trustworthy enough that the USA would want to supply them with a very advanced system. IMHO, that quickly limits it to a handful of countries: Israel, Italy, Norway, South Korea, Taiwan, and that's probably about it. I can't really see Italy or Norway wanting M247s — if they had a need for modern armoured AA gun systems, I would think they would buy Gepards instead. South Korea could be interesting for a model, upgrading the vehicle much like the M48A5K MBT, and Taiwan could have similar (but different) additions. However, Israel makes the best option for the modeller, IMHO, because of their propensity to tinker with their vehicles ...

Last year, right after it came out, I bought the Takom M247 kit:

You cannot view this attachment.

That, incidentally, comes in a big box. Here's a comparison to the more usual size of the Tamiya Panzer IV I'm close to finishing (which is why I'm starting this thread now )

You cannot view this attachment.

It's over twice as deep, 13 cm in all says my ruler. And it's pretty much packed with sprues — they're not giving you a box that big just because they can. Instructions for this kit are on Scalemates, BTW (because I put them there ).

As soon as I opened the box I decided I wasn't going to use the tracks. Construction of them is very similar to Rye Field Model's Sherman HVSS tracks (similar enough that I suspect the same person designed both), and TBH, one set like that was kind of enough for me. So I immediately sold them to another sucker a fellow modeller. I originally intended to use a set of AFV Club T142 tracks, as those are easy to assemble and I had a set in my stash already anyway.

Though that was before I decided on making it an Israeli vehicle. I figure they would have eventually upgraded the vehicle with Merkava track, like they put on their M60 tanks by the late 80s/early 90s, so I bought a set from Legend in resin with those, and the appropriate drive sprockets. However, once I got it, I soon started reconsidering. The casting quality is fine, but all of the lengths are warped sideways, and anyway, I don't like link-and-length track in plastic, never mind in resin ...

But where to get a better set? You can buy them from some manufacturers, but only Legend seems to include the drive sprocket that you need for an M60 (or M48) to use the tracks. So in the end, I took a drastic step and bought this kit:

You cannot view this attachment.

Meng's Magach 6B Gal, which has the track and sprockets I wanted. Luckily, there are photos of this particular variant of the Magach with T142 tracks, so I just put the AFV Club set I had, into this kit's box, together with the drive sprocket and final drive housing parts from the M247. (If you're wondering if this will fit: it should, given that the M60 is basically an improved M48, and the Magach 6-series is Israel's improved M60.)

But we can do better than just swap tracks ... I also have these:—

You cannot view this attachment.You cannot view this attachment.

Actually, in the first picture there, I have two each of the two sprues on the left. They're from an AFV Club Israeli M113 kit but as I bought that to build it as an American one (but could only find the Israeli version), I have all of them spare. The tan sprue in the second photo is from the Academy M113 Fitter, which I also didn't build as Israeli (25+ years ago ...) so again, spare to use bits from here. The tow cable I did buy specifically for this model, because Israeli M60 tow cables are rather complex affairs so I thought I'd take the easy way out.

And then, let's go all the way ... Israel upgraded its M163s by fitting a four-round Stinger missile launcher, and IMHO it's quite reasonably to assume the M247 would have gotten Stingers at some point anyway. Fitting the same launcher as on the Israeli M163 makes sense, but where to get that? There is a conversion set from Legend (again), but looking for that, I found it cost more than this complete kit from Italeri:

You cannot view this attachment.

... which made the decision quite easy If I'm smart I'll only use one launcher, leaving the other to be fitted to the LAV, as it has one removable launch pod ... Not sure yet if I will be, though

And I thought Whiffing aircraft was complicated enough............... 

This will be quite a project! I'll be watching.
I had heard quite a long time ago how Israel was interested in the already built turrets. You are on to something here. Watch out for the black helicopters!

Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 01, 2024, 12:59:01 PMAnd I thought Whiffing aircraft was complicated enough............... 

This will actually be pretty straightforward: build the M247 almost completely out of the box, just swap the drive sprockets and tracks for those from the Meng Magach, and add/replace some bits the Israelis would have, like the smoke launchers, commander's machine gun, tow cable, jerrycans, folding stretcher, etc. No major conversion work, thankfully. (I did consider putting the turret onto the M60 hull, but that would be a big conversion, as I would have to graft the M247 engine deck/rear onto the M60, so that's part of why I've decided to keep the M48A5 hull.)

Quote from: kerick on February 01, 2024, 08:11:01 PMI had heard quite a long time ago how Israel was interested in the already built turrets.

I hadn't heard that, but I guess they would have had to put in a lot of effort to make it actually work reliably.

My interest is piqued   

Quote from: Jakko on February 02, 2024, 02:22:06 AM

Quote from: kerick on February 01, 2024, 08:11:01 PMI had heard quite a long time ago how Israel was interested in the already built turrets.

I hadn't heard that, but I guess they would have had to put in a lot of effort to make it actually work reliably.

They have! They're called Rafael & Elbit.  

Some serious top shelf kits used for this build... very interested to see how they get used for the final vehicle

I wouldn't have bought the Magach kit if it wasn't one of the few options to get Merkava tracks. I mean, I could have bought a set of metal tracks and a separate set with the drive sprocket, but at that point you're almost cheaper off with this plastic kit to take them from anyway — and which can still be built by putting the M247's tracks and drive sprockets on it (though buying a relatively cheap set of tracks from AFV Club will ease your pain a lot ).

The Panzer IV I've been building of late is approaching being finished, so I decided to start on the M247. With step 1, even:

You cannot view this attachment.

If this was the Tamiya kit, that would have been about a single part. But this is the Takom kit, and it's more like 45 ...

It's one of those kits with working suspension, a feature I don't see the point of, but it has to go in else you can't fit the suspension arms:

You cannot view this attachment.

I only glued them on the inner end, leaving the outboard side free to rotate so I can later line out the suspension arms before glueing them in place.

If you build one of these Takom M48 kits, follow the instructions for the suspension parts positioning very carefully! The torsion bars can go in in one of three directions, but only one is correct, and it's not the same on both sides. I found the best way to do it was to insert the bar, rotate it so the lug on it was pointed as per the instructions and the triangular inner end sits correctly in its recess. By pressing down on that with your fingernail, you can easily feel if it's in the right orientation, or if it needs to rotate slightly more (or back).

Are these torsion bars made of polystyrene? What do you do when they break? Does the model come apart again to replace the broken parts? This requires a maintenance management program of which I think I should get a handsome salary and a government car. Also occasional trips to Washington DC to lobby Congress for increased funding for technological research and development for future torsion bar needs.

Spelling my name backward will not be enough to save you from a law suit. My lawyers will be in touch. 

Quote from: kerick on February 08, 2024, 07:09:22 PMAre these torsion bars made of polystyrene? What do you do when they break? Does the model come apart again to replace the broken parts?

I suppose you could leave the hull top loose, like on the Tamiya kit, though you may need to scratchbuild a way for the poly caps to hold it in place Then just repair the broken bar by glueing it back together, and use less force when playing with your model next time round.

In any case, I intend to glue the suspension arms solidly in place, but the torsion bars have their locating lugs on them, so you can't really fit the arms without the bars, unfortunately.

Quote from: The Rat on February 09, 2024, 12:19:53 AMSpelling my name backward will not be enough to save you from a law suit. My lawyers will be in touch. 

Your name is Ile Arsi?

Quote from: zenrat on February 09, 2024, 02:08:05 AM

Quote from: The Rat on February 09, 2024, 12:19:53 AMSpelling my name backward will not be enough to save you from a law suit. My lawyers will be in touch. 

Your name is Ile Arsi?